Talk:Moro River campaign/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hi! I have elected to review this article against the Good Article criteria and should have my initial comments posted up within the next few hours. However, I do have one query straight off the bat: shouldn't the article be named Moro River Campaign rather than The Moro River Campaign per MoS? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed reviewing this article against the criteria and am placing it on hold. It is quite a good article, but I do have a few concerns that are outlined below. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • The lead requires an expansion. An article of this size would probably merit a three paragraph lead.
    • An endash (–) is required between date ranges used in the article and page ranges used in citations.
    Done (I think I got them all). Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 17:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The dates should be unlinked and consistant. At the present both the US format (December 30) and British format (30 December) are used; these should remanin consistant throughout. As the article is on a British/Commonwealth campaign, the British varient should be implemented.
    Done Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 10:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spellings differ in the article from US English and British English. They should remain consistant with one or the other, preferrable British English due to the same reasons above.
    • Would it be possible to give the exact dates of the campaign in the infobox?
    • A Conversion template should be used with given measurements. Eg. 5 kilometres (3.1 mi).
    Done Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 11:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "... A Company moved through the northeastern areas of the town, continuing to eliminate German resistance ..." - would it be possible to rewrite this? It sounds a little awkward, and slightly POV, with "eliminate" included.
    Done. Cam (Chat) 01:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Words/phrases/units should only be linked the first time they are mentioned. For example, in the "San Leonardo" section, the Seaforth Highlanders are linked four times.
    • "By noon, however, Colonel Doug Forin had devised an attack ..." - who is Colonel Doug Forin? I presume the commander of the Seaforth Highlanders? If so, this should be clarified.
    • Done.
    • "By 1340hrs, the 1st Canadian Infantry Brigade had initiated an artillery barrage against German positions near San Leonardo, while the Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment sent two companies to the aid of the Seaforth Highlanders, while Seaforth B Company hit multiple German positions west of San Leonardo, inflicting 129 casualties on German forces in the area." - this section is slightly confusing, and could do with a slight rewrite.
    • "Meanwhile, after a period of patrolling and probing to identify the location of the German defenses of 26th Panzer Division and the right flank of the 90th Panzergrenadier Division, the New Zealand Division, with British 2nd Independent Parachute Brigade under command and anchoring their left flank,[27] launched Operation Torso, a two brigade attack against Orsogna at 1430 on 7 December accompanied by heavy concentrations of artillery and air support." - this sentence is quite long and wordy. Please split it up a little. Done Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 10:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same here: "In the afternoon, the British 5th Infantry Division attacked on the right wing of the Corps front towards the Arielli stream to secure the flank of the New Zealand Division who were in turn to attack northwest and west from the salient in order to roll up the Orsogna defenses from the north."Done Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 10:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The 5th Infantry Division, having achieved its objectives, New Zealand 5th Infantry Brigade attacked at 0400 on 24 December." - this sentence requires a rewrite.Done Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 10:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • The flollowing require a reference/citation: "As a result of the withdrawal, Canadian efforts would focus on achieving a bridgehead at San Leonardo.", "As a result, Forin was ordered to prepare for a withdrawal from the San Leonardo bridgehead." and "The attack was quickly abandoned."
    • Ref 35 needs a page number.Done Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 23:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    • Would it be possible to expand further and slightly clarify the "San Donato" section?
    • Would it be possible to expand the "Aftermath" section? How exactly was it a "Tactical Stalemate" and "Strategic Allied Victory", as stated in the infobox?
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    • "... in Italy against determined German opposition skillfully directed by Albert Kesselring ..." - the use of "skillfully" sounds POV.
    • "However, a combination of cleverly located minefields and German armour well dug in in commanding positions made the task of the Allied tanks impossible." - the use of "cleverly" sounds POV.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    • File:Moro-captured.jpg requires an author. If unknown, place "Unknown" in the appropiate section.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Please notify me on my talk page when you believe all of the above have been addressed, and I'll go through the article again. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second round[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • An endash (–) is required between date ranges used in the article and page ranges used in citations.
    • Spellings differ in the article between US English and British English. They should remain consistant with one or the other, preferrably British English due to the reasons above.
    • In the first paragraph under "Canadians cross the Moro" it starts off my stating "Beginning on 6 December, 1943, Canadian forces began ..." and at the end "The offensives were scheduled to start on the morning of 6 December.". The second case is just a repeat of the first. Also, the first sentence starting with "Begining" and soon after "began" is again a repeat and doesn't sond right. I would cut off the "Begining" and have "On 6 December 1943, Canadian forces began ..."
    • "Although two Infantry Companies had occupied Villa Rogatti ..." - I presume these were German? If so, it should be clarified as it is a little confusing at the moment.
    • Clarified, they were actually Canadian. Cam (Chat) 18:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider combining the second and third paragraphs in the "Villa Rogatti" section as they are both short and related.
    • Consider splitting the final paragraph in the "Villa Rogatti" section at "In order to allow the Canadian Division ..." as it is a little out of place combined.
    • Several words/phrases are linked multipul times within this article. Something should only be linked the first time it is mentioned.
    • Consider splitting the first paragraph in the "San Leonardo" section at "Had a significant crossing ..." due to the same reasons above.
    • "By 1340, the 1st Canadian Infantry Brigade had initiated an artillery barrage against German positions near San Leonardo, while the Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment sent two companies to the aid of the Seaforth Highlanders, while Seaforth B Company hit multiple German positions west of San Leonardo, inflicting 129 casualties on German forces in the area." - this sentence doesn't sound right, mainly due to the repetition of "while". Please re-phrase it.
    • Who is Lieutenat Colonel Kennedy? I presume the commander of the The Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment? If so, this should be clarified.
    • Clarified and fixed. Cam (Chat) 02:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Attempts to exploit the position throughout the day, including assaults by tanks and artillery, failed to take San Donato. By nightfall, two companies had a tenuous hold on the northern bank of the Moro River." - the second sentence needs to be explained a little better. What two companies (German? British? Canadian?) and how/why?
    • I'm just cutting that last sentence. I rechecked my books, and it turns out they withdrew across the river. Cam (Chat) 02:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Surprise was achieved as Traugott Herr ..." - could Herr's rank be added? Same with Freyberg a little further down?
    • They're in the "Background" and "Order of Battle" section. Cam (Chat) 18:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • The following requires a reference/citation:
    • "Together, these units formed Traugott Herr's LXXVI Panzer Corps, the part of Joachim Lemelsen's Tenth Army responsible for the front line to the east of the Apennines."
    • "San Leonardo, 5 kilometres (3.1 mi) south of Ortona; and San Donato, a small town near the Italian coast. Five primary infantry battalions were selected to assault these positions, with the objective of crossing the Moro River. The offensives were scheduled to start on the morning of 6 December."
    • "As a result of the withdrawal, Canadian efforts would focus on achieving a bridgehead at San Leonardo."
    • "As a result, Forin was ordered to prepare for a withdrawal from the San Leonardo bridgehead."
    • "The operation was scheduled to start on the afternoon of 8 December."
    • Done. Technically, it was the previous ref that was citing both. I've moved it to make that clearer. Cam (Chat) 00:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "... while the other XIII Corps formations in defensive positions further inland would revert to direct control by Eighth Army headquarters in order to allow XIII Corps to focus on the attack."
    • There's nothing in the prose that relates to that section. Cam (Chat) 00:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC) (That's coz I took it out - it's not really that important. )Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 00:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    • "The attack was quickly abandoned."
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    • Would it be possible to further expand the "San Donato" section?
    • Unfortunately..not likely. The information I have access to regarding San Donato is extremely limited (as the attacks themselves were). Cam (Chat) 00:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would it be possible to expand the "Aftermath" section? How exactly was it a "Tactical Stalemate" and "Strategic Allied Victory", as stated in the infobox?
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Well, I am now satisfied that any and all of my concerns have been addressed, and I'm off to pass the article. Well done! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moro_River_campaign/GA1&oldid=1181660680"